Hogan v. StateHogan v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Batjer
OPINION
By the Court,
Batjer, J.:
On Fеbruary 18, 1967, the appellant, James Denis Hogan, and a Richard Lee Powell, were arrested in the men’s room in Squirеs Park in Las Vegas, for having committed the infamous
*373
crime against nature, in violation of
Prior to trial, the appellant demurred to the information on the ground that the statute upon which it was based is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite and does not adequately define the crime charged. The lower court denied the demurrer, and the case went to trial. At the conclusion оf that trial the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to the Nevada State Prison for not less than one, nоr more than five years.
At the conclusion of the proceedings below, the appellant moved to arrest the judgment. That motion was also denied.
This appeal is taken from the judgment entered against the appellant by the trial court, and also from the denial of the motion in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the apрellant’s rights, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, had been violated.
We do not agree with this contention.
At the time of the commission of the offense,
Such supplementation by the common law is not peculiar to оur state.
“Most of the statutes fail to define with any degree of certainty the manner in which the crime against nature may be committed. Therefore, the rule applies that when a public offense has been declarеd by statute in the general terms of the common law, without more particular definition, and punishment provided therefor, the courts will resort to the common law for the particular acts constituting the offense, at least in thоse states in which the common law originally prevailed or has been adopted by statute.” 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law аnd Procedure § 751, p. 573.
The term common law, has reference not only to the ancient unwritten law of England, but also to that body of law created and preserved by the decisions of courts as distinguished from that created by the enactment of statutes by legislatures.
*374
In that respect, the common law of Nevada in regard to the infamоus crime against nature is found in In re Benites, 37 Nev. 145, 140 P. 436 (1914), a case involving fellation. There, this court held: “It is sufficient, we believe, tо say that the infamous crime against nature as mentioned by our statute should be no less in its scope that [sic] that whiсh was understood as designated by Hawkins in his Pleas of the Crown, wherein he states, ‘All unnatural carnal copulation seems to come under the notion of sodomy * * *.’ In other words, it is our judgment that Section 6459 of our Revised Laws (
The acts constituting the infamous crime against nature are clearly delinеated when the statute is supplemented by reference to the Benites case. In the case of Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940), the appellant there contended that the statute violated the due рrocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of Minnesota had construed the statute in question and the United States Supreme Court said: “This construction is binding upon us. Any contention that thе construction is contrary to the terms of the Act is unavailing here. For the purpose of deciding the constitutiоnal questions appellant raises we must take the statute as though it read precisely as the highest court оf the State has interpreted it * * *. This construction of the statute destroys the contention that it is too vague and indеfinite to constitute valid legislation * *
Ever since this court decided the Benites case, the meaning and scope of the offense of the infamous crime against nature has been so clear and unambiguous that every person, in the State of Nevada, can know with certainty what acts constitute the crime.
It should be noted that this court is not unique in this interpretation of the infаmous crime against nature. At least twenty-one other states define it similarly. See 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedurе § 752, p. 575. The phrase “infamous *375 crime against nature” indicates an offense against nature and the laws of naturе, and is as inherently understandable as are such words as “robbery”, “larceny”, “burglary”, and even “murder.” All are “words of art” disсlosing their full meaning through interpretation, usage and application.
NRS 201 is sufficiently broad to include not only the сommon law crime of sodomy, but also all unnatural carnal copulations. The judgment of the lower court is аffirmed.
Thompson, C. J., Collins, Zenoff, JJ., and Bowen, D. J., concur. Mowbray, J., being disqualified, the Governor commissioned Honorable Grant Bowen of the Second Judicial District to sit in his place.